Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[claidemore]

Hi Soren:
The max dive speed for FW190As, afaik, was 750kmh, not 850. What is your source for the 850kmh dive?

190s also reported heavy elevator forces in pullout at max speed dives, same as every other WWII fighter. Well harmonized controls don't give the plane any magical abilities in dive pullouts, it's still a mechanical muscle powered control. I believe the Spitfire wing has a higher mach number as well, and the famous 'oversensitive' elevators would be an advantage in pullout.

I'd like to adress your comment about Spitfires stalling and flipping on their back. Something I'd never heard of outside of testing with dramatic shifts of CoG.

Pilot handbook for the Spit IX says: "At the stall either wing and the nose drop gently. Recovery is straightforward and easy."
Warning of a stall in all cases is felt in tail buffetting, from 10mph to 5 mph before the stall (depending on wing, clipped or standard).

Only in those few planes that had rear fuselage fuel tanks, and a corresponding shift in CoG, was there any mention of a 'flick' stall.

The 190 on the other hand, gave no warning of a stall, and was also prone to aileron reversal in tight turns. There are reports of poor performance in a loop as well.

I mis-spoke when responding to your comment about "one or two cases". I realize now that you were referring to 190s augering in, and my reference to Brackens books was about Spits pursuing diving 190s.

Here's a few accounts from Mike Williams site: (all my books are in storage which is really frustrating for me! )

I broke down and right and caught another FW as he commenced to dive away. At 14,000 ft. approx. I gave a burst of cannon and M/G, 400 yds range, hitting E/A along fuselage. Pieces fell off and E/A continued in straight dive nearly vertical. I followed E/A down to 5,000 ft. over Boulogne and saw him hit the deck just outside of Boulogne and explode and burn up. Returned to base at 0 ft.
1 FW 190 Destroyed.

The leading one then broke off and the rear one started to dive towards France, taking slight evasive action. The dive started at about 10,000 feet and I got many bursts from astern at ranges from 200 to 400 yards. I saw cannon strikes, and his tank burst. Then, after about another second, black smoke and flames poured from his tail. At 2,000 feet my ammunition gave out and I saw him slowly carry on his dive to the right, flaming and smoking, until he crashed in a field (This, I think, was just S.E. of St. Omer). I came back at zero feet.
1 FW 190 Destroyed.

I got a little in front of No. 1 and No. 2 and a little to the left. I got one E/A in my sight but although I had 500 m.p.h. on the clock, I closed in very slowly to 300 yards firing short bursts. It was a very difficult to get in a good deflection shot, as he was using his rudder very hard, and skidding from one side to the other, until I saw a vivid flash in his cockpit. The E/A then dived steeply down and I then realized that I was on the point of diving vertically into the saw and managed to pull out with nothing to spare. The E/A made no attempt to pull out and went straight in.

I got on the tail of one of them as it dived steeply to Port without taking any evasive action. I closed in to 300 yards and fired two or three short bursts from ten to fifteen degrees deflection. The E/A immediately burst into flames, making very little smoke

I positioned myself on the tail of this A/C who, when he saw me, pushed his stick forward and dived very steeply westwards down the coast. It was some time before I could get within firing range and there was 480 I.A.S. on my clock when I opened with a short burst from dead astern 200 yards

I instructed my section to engage these six enemy aircraft but just as I was within range they all dived steeply down. I followed my aircraft and opened fire from 250 yards with cannon and M/G. Several strikes were seen on his fuselage, wing roots and tail unit and he commenced to emit thick black smoke, as I broke away I saw at least one half of a wing break away.

I know the 190s had their successes too. Their biggest advantage over France until D-Day was the fact that they were operating in their own airspace, giving an overall tactical/situational advantage, similar to the Spits and Hurricanes during BoB with 109Es operating at max range.
But that tactical/situational advantage doesn't mean the plane itself was better. When you compare the advantages of the two planes against each other, the Spitfire has the edge, and will come out ahead in a greater variety of situations.
I agree that the 190 was a very good fighter (almost as good as a Spit! lol) , it has always been one of my favorites, and the two planes performance similarities and differences make for a great discussion.

 

[claidemore]

Good post. The Spit IX outclimbed the 51B-5 with both the 1650-3 and 1650-7 in it. It was only with 44-1 fuel, the -7 and 75" boost that the 51B got 4380 fpm with full Gross weight and racks at 9680 pounds..

And the 51B out climbed and was faster than the Fw 190A-5 at SL, at 20,000 feet and far better at 30,000 feet. It turned with it and the Spit outturned the Mustang. It turned with the 109 and the Spit IX out turned the 51B, until high speed and altitude, then they were very close.

..

Agree completely.
An now that you mention Mustangs, the Mustang 1s were operating during the period covered by this thread, which I beleive were faster than the 190 @ SL and were used in the same type of role as the Jabo 190s. They flew those same Mustang 1s from 41 to 44, and didn't have a lot of losses. Thats one of the unsung heros of the war IMO.

 

[Soren]

Claidemore,

Read the FW-190A-5 manual, there the max permitted dive speed is listed, 850 km/h (531.5 mph).

As for your quotes, NONE of them are a case of the 190 failing to pull out of the dive because of high elevator forces, they were ALL shot down, there's a BIG difference.

At high speeds the FW-190 had the lightest and best harmonized controls of any WW2, infact the controls became almost dangerously light at very high speeds, there being a great risk of he pilot overstressing the airframe in tight pull outs, and the FW-190's wings could take over 12 G's!

Furthermore the 190 gave plenty of warning of the stall, however if the ailerons were improperly adjusted aileron reversal would occur which resulted in premature stalls in turns causing dramatically poorer turn performance. Hence the poor results the US Navy got with their captured A-5, as it suffered from improperly adjusted ailerons, as did Faber's A-3.

The later captured FW-190 Jabo featured properly adjusted ailerons and performed much better than previously captured examples, turning with a Mustang III, and this is despite it being a heavilily armored equipped Jabo!

With properly adjusted ailerons the FW-190 gave plenty of warning of the stall and was a very potent turn fighter, out-turning the Mustang at low to medium altitudes and being capable of following a Spitfire through the first 145 degrees. That coupled with its much superior roll rate, speed dive acceleration made it a better fighter than the Spitfire and allowed it acquire itself a very high Kill/loss ratio against it over the channel from 1942 and onwards.

 

[Soren]

It turned with the 109 and the Spit IX out turned the 51B, until high speed and altitude, then they were very close.

Bill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance.

Also the Bf-109 was everybit as good a turn fighter as the Spitfire, the 109 G.2 and Spit IX being close equals in 42 43.

The FW-190 A-5 was faster, dive quicker and was more maneuverable than both, hence its huge success against the Spitfire.

The P-51B was more of a match for the 190, featuring excellent speed at all altitudes and good high speed control.

But, all those Fw 190s and 109s must have gone down to acts of God, because no Allied fighter could touch their performance..

Come on Bill, that's unnecessary and completely useless. I like it better when you hold your composure and commit yourself to a serious debate.

 

[claidemore]

Hi Soren,

As much as I enjoy debating with you on this topic, I enjoy reasearching and reading manuals even more!

I have the 190A5 manual, in German (pdf). Since I'm a mono-lingual knuckle dragger, I haven't even attempted to translate it and I'm not sure how to go about translating a pdf with an online translater. (I did tranlate the Yak3 manual from Russian, but it was html, so I could cut and paste it easily)

If there is no english version out there, wouldn't it be cool if some fluent german speaking guy could translate it for us and post it here on these forums?

Claidemore

 

[drgondog]

Agree completely.
An now that you mention Mustangs, the Mustang 1s were operating during the period covered by this thread, which I beleive were faster than the 190 @ SL and were used in the same type of role as the Jabo 190s. They flew those same Mustang 1s from 41 to 44, and didn't have a lot of losses. Thats one of the unsung heros of the war IMO.

You are absolutely correct - I didn't interject the Mustang III to put it in this period - just to illustrate a comparison versus the Spit IX, and indirectly the Fw 190A-5. The Mustang I was an excellent a/c up to 20,000 - much like the 190A-5 and had a lower wing loading than the P-51B/C and D..it was the best 'initial turning' performance Mustang.

The RAF didn't use the 20mm in the I (IIRC) but the P-51As in Africa were initially equipped with them. I wish the gun had remained - even two, inboard would have been quite effective I believe..

 

[drgondog]

Bill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance.

In fact, that is not the case. I don't believe that you have yet submitted one shred of proof or data to substantiate your own claims despite months of debate on the topic.

You have not retrieved even one anecdotal comparison of the Mustang versus the Gustav at Rechlin or any other LW sources.

You have not refuted by counter evidence any of the comparative tests performed by the RAF, nor demonstrated that slats were not used or effective ion those turn comparisons.

In short - you bring opinions to a fact fight on this subject.

Also the Bf-109 was everybit as good a turn fighter as the Spitfire, the 109 G.2 and Spit IX being close equals in 42 43.

I believe anecdotally that they were close as I believe the 51 and 109 and 190 were 'close' to each other. On the topic of Fw 190 and Me 109, you have yet to drag up comparative tests between the two from Luftwaffe sources in a controlled environment, however - so that question remains open to an objective listener

The FW-190 A-5 was faster, dive quicker and was more maneuverable than both, hence its huge success against the Spitfire.

The P-51B was more of a match for the 190, featuring excellent speed at all altitudes and good high speed control.

And low speed control, and turn, and climb. The 190 was significantly better in roll - each about same in acceleration depending on loading of each fighter when engaged. By 1944 the 51B could do 4350fpm at 9850 pounds - a full combat load without external fuel - by the time it got to Germany and dropped tanks it was more agile than that with full load of internal fuel.

Come on Bill, that's unnecessary and completely useless. I like it better when you hold your composure and commit yourself to a serious debate.

Soren, debating with you is rarely 'serious' - primarily because you remind one of great salesmen - i.e "Don't confuse Selling with Delivering" - in other words don't hold me to facts when I want to tell you how good my _____ is!" (you can fill in the blanks).

How can you contineu to use terms like 'far better' in discussing turn advantage of the Me 109G (or Fw 190A-5) over Spit IX, when you have yet to prove that either can objectively MATCH the Spit IX, much less turn better - all conditions being equal?

You can blather all you want about pilots 'being afraid' to turn at low speeds but you can't prove it. You can pontificate about control rigging but provide no substance to demonstrate that any characteristic was unfairly applied to any test aircraft.

You talk about 12 G pullouts for an Fw 190 as if it is a well established fact. Actaully I'm prepared to believe it but out of curiosity can you point to strain gage results of such stresses in real life? or even hydraulic tests on wing structures to failure? Probably not.

You make comments that pilots like Gunther Rall were afraid to use leading edge slats in a 109 as if you two just had a conversation over the subject and he confessed his 'sins' of not trusting the 109 because of a bad experience! Where in the world did you get that idea?

Earlier you claimed that the 109 was stressed to 13 G but that proof point got lost somewhere along the way.

So, Fact sources for
1. 109G or K out turning either a Fw 190, or SpitIX or P-51B at any altitude.
2. 190 pdesigned to pull 12G's
3. 190 'approved' to dive at 535mph
4. 190 out turn Spit IX or P-51B
5. 109 or Fw 190 outclimb the Spit IX or P-51B

Include the load conditions and condition of the airframe for the tests and the design docs or pilot operating handbook for the 'approved' dive speeds and loads.

It is a complete mystery why you make such unequivocal statements and makes most of your posts repititious rather than intellectually engaging?

I hope I wasn't too emotional for you?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This shall be interesting...

 

[kool kitty89]

Soren didn't say the Me 109 would greatly out-turn the Spit IX (at least not in the last few pages of this thread) he actually said they would be fairly close matches in this respect.

Just by looking at the properties of these a/c (wing loading, wing properties, LE-slats, power loading) the Me 109 (and Spitfire) should out-turn the P-51B and Fw 190. And the 190 should out-turn the P-51 at low altitude (below 18,000 ft) but quickly lose this advantage with altitude. The 190 would hold the advantage of roll over the others and have better low-speed turning ability than the P-51.

Though (at least in early models) the Fw 190 began losing its roll advantage above ~250 mph.

Much of this seems to be supported by anecdotal data... (I don't have any off hand though)

 

[Glider]

I asked for similar information earlier in the thread and am still waiting so we will see.

 

[Soren]

Bill,

I have provided source for most of what I've said, that you choose not to read them is not my problem. But since you asked I'll provide it again:

About the 109 and pilots being vary of the slats, this is a proven fact Bill, something which I have proven to you multiple times by now.

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

Erwin Leykauf, LW fighter pilot, 33 victories:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories:
Did your flying and tactics change with the new plane?
"No, it was basically the same. Except now we had better climb rates than the Russians and we could split better. And of course gain surprise. With speed, you could hit and run. And not spend much time in their sights.
The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up.
The Messerschmitt was exellent. You got always away when you pushed your nose down, and it then rose like an elevator. You soon had upper hand again.
You should never lose your speed. Always get back up. The one who is higher has the advantage. You could shake the other with a climbing turn, he had to turn harder. Tighten the turn when the other tries to get into shooting position. The Messerschmitt climbed better, so it got away. Handy.
The one who is in the inside of the circle loses his speed and doesn't get into position. You could use it against Yak-9's and La-5's, they were no more nimble."

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Two P-51 shootdowns with three-cannon Messerschmitt 109 G-6/R6:
"I got both in a turning battle, out-turning them. We did several times 360 degrees until he became nervous, then pulled a little too much. His plane "warned", the pilot had to give way a little and I was able to get deflection. When I got to shoot at the other one, the entire left side was ripped off.
- So you did several full circles, you must have flown near stalling speed. Did you fly with "the seat of your pants" or kept eye on the dials? What was the optimum speed in such a situation, it was level flight?
It was level flight and flying by "the seat of your pants". What should I say, I should say I was doing 250kmh and the Mustang must have more than 300kmh. That is why I was able to hang on but did not get the deflection.
- And you was flying a three cannon plane?
Yes, but I did fly another one as mine was under maintenance. It was the experience that counted. Experience helped to decide when you had tried different things.
- In which altitude did these Mustang dogfights take place?
It must have been about 2000m." (These were actually LaGG-3's which makes it even more amazing)

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace, 32 victories, :
"The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh."

Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot:"It was amazing feeling to take off in Messerschmitt after the Fiat (G.50). It was gung ho and no hesitation! The performance and handling of the plane were excellent and all systems were in their correct place. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."

Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories:
"I got in a dogfight against a Yak-9. I was the underdog, quite close to the water. The Yak-9 had bounced me from behind somewhere and the turning started. I pulled the stick, clenching my teeth, and he followed me. We completed four circles about, but then he disengaged and headed for East, for home. We had been on wavetops, altitude no more than 50m. I arrived at the base. I looked for holes but found only one, in the right wing (of the Me 109 G-6)."


Helmut Lipfert, German fighter ace. 203 victories:"I cast a quik glance at the machine and then climbed up after the other enemy aircraft. Damn, he could turn! Finally I was sitting behind him. I turned so tightly that condensation trails formed behind both wingtips and my Me shuddered on the verge of a stall more than once. Fortunately, the 109 turned extremely well.
The whole air battle took place at a very low altitude. I sat behind the Russian like a shadow, and now and then I succeeded in hitting him."

Major Kozhemyako, VSS fighter ace:
"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen. Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful in fights with Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight."

Mark Hannah, Mordern 109 pilot:"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight."

Satisfied ?

As for the comparative tests with the 109 190 I promised, I forgot to provide these that's true, will do so when I find them. I do promise you though Bill, they are there, you can trust me 100% on that! (Ask Gene, he's got them, all of them!)

I remember quite a few phrases from the tests though, "the 109 getting on the 190's tail in no time" being one of them. LW Chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais also made it clear that the FW-190 was absolutely no match in turn fight against the Bf-109, something which was thuroughly established in all the tests he carried out with the a/c.

Shall we move on to the aerodynamics ?

Bf-109 G-2
Weight: 2,890 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Power: 1,455 HP

Wing AR: 6.09
Clmax: 1.70

Power-loading: 1.98
Lift-loading: 105.26

Spitfire Mk. IX
Weight: 3,356 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Power: 1,580 HP

Wing AR: 5.61
Clmax: 1.36

Power-loading: 2.12
Lift-loading: 109.77

P-51B
Weight: 4,256 kg
Wing area: 21.64 m^2
Wing span: 11.21 m
Power: 1,790 HP

Wing AR: 5.80
Clmax: 1.47

Power-loading: 2.38
Lift-loading: 133.79


As you can see the P-51 aint even close to the Bf-109 or Spitfire

The funny thing about all this though is that I know you're already aware of it, so that I have to explain over and over again is tiring. You have said yourself many times that most Mustangs lost to 109s were so because they engaged in slow speed turn fights.

 

[drgondog]

Soren didn't say the Me 109 would greatly out-turn the Spit IX (at least not in the last few pages of this thread) he actually said they would be fairly close matches in this resBill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance.
pect.

Actually you are right.. Soren's specific comment was " Bill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance. so I will modify the checklist above to reflect that

Just by looking at the properties of these a/c (wing loading, wing properties, LE-slats, power loading) the Me 109 (and Spitfire) should out-turn the P-51B and Fw 190. And the 190 should out-turn the P-51 at low altitude (below 18,000 ft) but quickly lose this advantage with altitude. The 190 would hold the advantage of roll over the others and have better low-speed turning ability than the P-51.

Coulda, shoulda, mighta - everything you just said was anecdotal. where is a test flight or comparison to negate the RAF Flight Test comparisons of Spit IX, Mustang III, Me 109G, Fw 190A-5?

Mustang Tacical Trials

Note that the Mustang III in the test against the Spitfire IX with clipped wings is at 10,100 pounds. That is full ammo and oil plus full fuel including internal tanks, including fuselage tank. There is no comment on this but I GUARANTEE that had an effect in turning performance against the Spit IV. No P-51B would be anywhere NEAR that weight over Germany in a combat against either a 109 or 190.

Still it (Mustang III) was described as better and significantly better in contract to 109 and 190 in turn.. no mention of loading for either of those ships either but it wouldn't have been as bad as the hog load for the 51B!

The Spit IX was decribed as 'better' than the 51B. So the heirarchy was Spit IX, clipped wings better than Mustang III; Mustang III better than 190 and significantly better than the 109.

Soren says no. Soren never flew a 109 or 1 190 or a Spit or a Mustang but he knows 'better' than the RAF test pilots. Draw your own conclusions.

Don't go to the encounter reports because the advantage of Mustang over 109 (and 190) was enormous!

THIS~WAS ~NOT ~ALL~DUE~TO~MUSTANG ~PERFORMANCE!

Much to do with LW doctrine, US agressiveness, and the fact that most fights were initiated at altitudes where the Mustang WAS superior. Once a tactical advantage is obtained in an equal or better fighter only greatly superior pilot skill can get you out of the problem.

The 'anecdotal' references of the pilots (including Gunther Rall) is that the 'out manuever' for the 109 with a P-51 on his tail was a steep climbing turn to the right - which my father also agreed with. Turning was never described as the manuever to evade

Though (at least in early models) the Fw 190 began losing its roll advantage above ~250 mph.

It was still better than 51 until 400mph range

Much of this seems to be supported by anecdotal data... (I don't have any off hand though)

So, Soren said the Spit vs 109 was close but the Brits said the 109 was outurned 'significantly' by the Mustang III at max internal load!

I'll just rephrase the 'call to fact' for Soren, to isolate 109 versus P-51B and contrast against both normal gross weight, altitude, and speed, much less against 10,100#!

There is so much emphasis placed on easy to calculate aerodynamics characteristics such as W/L, A/R, etc w/o understanding that real life aerodynamic effects such as drag, power to weight, altitude, engine performance at the altitude, wing body effect, flow separation, etc and combine it with pilot skills and initial tactical position... not to mention engaging with an engine out of tune, on the verge of an overhaul, etc.

These fighters were ALL pretty damn good. Boneheads that quote selective aero characteristics to try to claim victory in these discussions without objective comparative data are idiots - myself included if I fall into that trap.

KK - don't get wrapped up in discussions like CL, angle of attack, W/L, flat plate drag, wetted drag, wing body effects, power loading, hp or other 'interesting data unless YOU can personally weave that into a cogent discussion and relate the THEORY to ACTUAL.

Others in this forum have a lot LESS theoretical background than I do and I am amazed at the bulls**t that flows as a result of a little knowledge of a few terms.

Guys like me (who bailed out after 6 years in the airframe industry) spend their LIVES trying to match the model to the reality in predicting performance.

I am now stepping down from my soapbox and apologise to you for lecturing you on this.

Soren, you now have the opportunity to prove your points rather than 'sell'

 

[Soren]

Oh almost forgot, here's a British RAF pilot out-turning two P-51A's in a FW190 with ease in August 1943:

 

[Soren]

Forgot this as-well:

Take Off Roll is a good way to predict the sustained turn performance of an a/c:

The Bf-109 F-4 has 240m take off roll, that's 85m shorter than the Spitfire Mk.V.

Landing speed is 130 km/h (81 mph).

 

[drgondog]

Bill,

About the 109 and pilots being vary of the slats, this is a proven fact Bill, something which I have proven to you multiple times by now.

Haven't proven it once, and more specifically not for the RAF test pilots!

I deleted the other blather because there are too many encounter reports describing how the Spit or Mustang cut inside the 109 and shot it down..why do you humiliate yourself with encounter reports when there are 3:1 ANECDOTAL descriptions that the 109 was inferior?

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Two P-51 shootdowns with three-cannon Messerschmitt 109 G-6/R6:
"I got both in a turning battle, out-turning them. We did several times 360 degrees until he became nervous, then pulled a little too much. His plane "warned", the pilot had to give way a little and I was able to get deflection. When I got to shoot at the other one, the entire left side was ripped off.

Would you use these as an example of a 109 as far superior to a 51 in turn? LMAO - is this the best you can do? Several 360 degree turns at low speed is an example of 'far better turning performance'

- So you did several full circles, you must have flown near stalling speed. Did you fly with "the seat of your pants" or kept eye on the dials? What was the optimum speed in such a situation, it was level flight?
It was level flight and flying by "the seat of your pants". What should I say, I should say I was doing 250kmh and the Mustang must have more than 300kmh. That is why I was able to hang on but did not get the deflection.
- And you was flying a three cannon plane?
Yes, but I did fly another one as mine was under maintenance. It was the experience that counted. Experience helped to decide when you had tried different things.
- In which altitude did these Mustang dogfights take place?
It must have been about 2000m." (These were actually LaGG-3's which makes it even more amazing)

So mistaken identity with unknown quality of pilots is 'Evidence' to you? That figures. Uh, and have you considered why he mentioned that the Mustang must have 300kmh? like maybe that was his perception a danger zone to the 109?

Mark Hannah, Mordern 109 pilot:"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight."

So, you have presented TWO anedotal encounters between a 109 and a p-51, one of which was mistaken identity! You have Mark Hannah's Utube interview.. where are the 3600 encounter reports in which a 51 destroyed a 109 in just the 8th AF?

The one encounter you presented that was a Mustang was self described as making several 360 degree turns at low speed with no closure 'until the Mustang pilot got nervous' and stalled out.

You consider THIS evidence that a 109 is far superior to a P-51 in turn?

Satisfied ?

NFW - for every accolade about the 109 turning ability I will find you two to twentythat demonstrated the 51 truning inside and killing the 109. Anecdotal doesnt't work here. Do you ever go to facts?

As for the comparative tests with the 109 190 I promised, I forgot to provide these that's true, will do so when I find them. I do promise you though Bill, they are there, you can trust me 100% on that! (Ask Gene, he's got them, all of them!)

I have asked Gene. He doesn't have them. Nobody seems to have them. Maybe they were transported to Atlantis in May 1944 as preparation for the Fourth Reich!

I remember quite a few phrases from the tests though, "the 109 getting on the 190's tail in no time" being one of them. LW Chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais also made it clear that the FW-190 was absolutely no match in turn fight against the Bf-109, something which was thuroughly established in all the tests he carried out with the a/c.

And the tests data and results are presented where? and where is the P-51 mentioned in your 'recollections'??

Shall we move on to the aerodynamics ?

Will there be a quiz? I have one for you down below

Bf-109 G-2
Weight: 2,890 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Power: 1,455 HP

Wing AR: 6.09
Clmax: 1.70

Power-loading: 1.98
Lift-loading: 105.26

Spitfire Mk. IX
Weight: 3,356 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Power: 1,580 HP

Wing AR: 5.61
Clmax: 1.36

Power-loading: 2.12
Lift-loading: 109.77

P-51B
Weight: 4,256 kg
Wing area: 21.64 m^2
Wing span: 11.21 m
Power: 1,790 HP

Wing AR: 5.80
Clmax: 1.47

Power-loading: 2.38
Lift-loading: 133.79


As you can see the P-51 aint even close to the Bf-109 or Spitfire?

I guess all the Mustang pilots must have missed your math...But the only tests documented say you are incorrect.

The funny thing about all this though is that I know you're already aware of it, so that I have to explain over and over again is tiring. You have said yourself many times that most Mustangs lost to 109s were so because they engaged in slow speed turn fights.

The funny thing Soren, is that I have always been aware of YOUR opinions but you have never backed it up with objective flight test comparisons!

I DID say that the Mustang and 109 were very close at low speeds Soren, and I agree that Mustang pilots were warned to avoid a low speed low altitude fight. Having said that, MY information is anecdotal , as yours is, regarding the 109 slight superiority at low speed and altitude.

In reality probably more 109s were downed in fights with Mustangs than the reverse - but that is all about pilot skill with two matched airplanes at low speed.

I have also stated that the Mustang gains advantage as the airspeed approaches 250mph and then increases the edge as the speed increases. That is also a combination of anecdotal information but supported by RAF Flight tests. You have yet to present rebuttal flight tests to bolster your 'anecdotal' quotes. Until you do, you are in an opinion based holding pattern

You somehow translate your belief system into a factual fabric that 'the P-51 ain't even close to the Bf109 or Spitfire, and that statement is simply untrue.


Conversely you have never proven it. Conversely you negate the RAF tests carried out by pilots interested in facts, with anecdotal references.

Net - quit dragging out silly quotes from VVS pilots extolling the virtues of the 109 - particularly since by and large the LW 'had its way' with the VVS, whereas the US FC Mustangs 'had its way with the LW'.

What logic compels you to cite anecdotal discussions of this type as factual basis for fighter to fighter performance?

As to posing as an aero by showing you know how to multiply and divide, tell me something interesting like the Roll, Pitch and Yaw Moments of Inertia for the two fighters, the calculated airspeed bleed in a 3g turn at 20,000 feet for an entry velocity of 400mph in a level turn, at normal gross weight for both aircraft and give me the calculated and and actual stick forces for a properly rigged ship of both types while holding the 3g turn?

At what speed in the 3g turn under those entry conditions is each CLACULATED to stall?

Let's start with something that reflects that you KNOW what you talk - relative to performance - or aerodynamics - instead of some gomer talking about shooting down Laag's when he thinks they are 51's?

In other words talk about something more intersting than your opinions?

 

[Juha]

Soren
Karhila's Mustangs were in fact Yak-9s from 13 KIAP, KBF.
Thanks for Nuuttila's opinion, haven't notice that before. Not all Finnish pilots, IMHO in fact only few, would call Pyry, notarious tip-staller, easy plane to fly. Which only shows that pilot opinions were not universal. IMHO most Finnish Bf 109G pilots thought that 109 was better in vertical and Yak-9s and La-5s in horizontal manouvres. And the important question is which version of Yak-9s and La-5s Finns had met. For example Yak-9M and -9DD were easier opponents than Yak-9s and La-5 was a quite diffirent animal than La-5FN.
And IIRC most of the time the Bf 109G-2 was the main LW fighter the use of 1,42 ata was forbitten, so IMHO you should use 1,3 ata (Kampf und Stieg) power in your comparations.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Bill,

The 109 which out-turned those Yak-9's (Not P-51's) was equipped with gun-pods. So yes its pretty incredible.

Also I know Crumpp has the comparative tests I talked about, he has presented them elsewhere, so frankly I'm not sure you've asked him or atleast he hasn't answered.

As for the physics, sorry but they don't lie, so you can keep talking about countless incounter reports if you like, they mean nothing, as there are atleast as many German encounter reports noting the 109 190 easily out-turned the Mustang.

Also the Youtube video was with a REAL LIFE Mustang owner and Skip Holm, now since you seem unfamiliar with this person let me give you a little update:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

And here's what two VERY experienced German pilots had to say about the slats:

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

Erwin Leykauf, LW fighter pilot, 33 victories:
"Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

Oh and I forgot to say that Erwin Leykauf actually tested the Spitfire during the war.

 

[Soren]

Found another report I had put away in my archive, not the one I was talking about which involved A-8's vs 109's at low to medium alts (Crumpp has that one), but just as interesting as it involves the A-9 vs the G-6/AS:

Aircraft Comparison FW 190A-9 and Bf 109 AS/MW 50 - From A German Report

HP 5156

Report from JG 11 on 29th October 1944 on mock air battle between Fw 190A-9 and Bf 109 G-6/AS/MW 50.

A Schwarm of Me 109 at 8,000 metres climbed up to attack a Rotte of Fw 190 at 10,000 metres. On the turn with 1.1 boost, the Me 109 Schwarm out climbed the Fw 190 Rotte by about 200 metres and at the same time without fully opened throttles and not flying flat out, they out turned the Fw 190 Rotte.

First attack was from above and behind with 1.1 boost and flaps retracted and a normal steep turn without opening to maximum possible speed, the Fw 190A-9 was easily overtaken and out turned.

Second attack from behind and below on the number one of the Rotte, aircraft was easily overtaken, out turned and outstripped in the inside turn.

On full throttle it is easily possible to out climb the A-9 without losing position since speed can be reduced by throttling back and doing very tight turns.

Appreciation: Me 109 AS/MW 50 obviously superior at high altitude to the Fw 190A-9. Secondly, now known that on July 14th, Air Officer for Technology issued instructions for preventing burning out of pistons on DB 603 and DB 605AS with methyl alcohol water injection.

 

[Soren]

Bill,

If you believe the P-51B 109G are close in terms of turn performance then you are horribly mistaking. The Bf-109 featured not only a higher lift airfoil but also Automatic LE slats, plus it was smaller, lighter and possessed a much lower power-loading. There's simply no way it's close Bill, it's far from it.

Fact is that the P-51 wasn't anywhere near as good a turnfighter as the 109, something which is not only supported by both veteran 109 P-51 pilots, but also modern Bf-109 P-51 pilots and crucially aerodynamics. Now you can deny this if you like but you've got everyone knowledgable on the subject against you then.

Forget about the RAE tests, as has been explained countless time the British pilots didn't put the a/c to its limits, just like every new pilot in the type. (Erwin Leykauf Walter Wolfrum made that abundantly clear) The British test pilots weren't familiar with the slats, and thus didn't know their characteristics or benefits. Plus the earlier 109 they had tested suffered from its slats jamming all the time, not exactly giving a booster to the moral to try that again! Hence their comment that the 109 was embarrased by the opening of its slats! That more than anything verifies the fact the British test pilots didn't push the a/c to its limits.

 

[Soren]

Oh I almost forgot this as-well;

From Hans Werner Lerche's book: Luftwaffe Test Pilot (Which I thought you owned yourself)

Low altitude comparative tests with FW-190A-8, Bf-109G La-5FN:

Tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots:

"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights. "

Surprise surprise, once again, like in every other German comparative test the 109 turns allot better than the 190.

Funny how you somehow missed this...